Systemic Challenge to Policies at Artesia

Systemic Challenge to Policies at Artesia

The American Immigration Council, in collaboration with the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, the National Immigration Law Center, Van Der Hout Brigagliano & Nightingale LLP, and Jenner & Block, filed this lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia. The case was a systemic challenge to the policies denying a fair deportation process to mothers and children detained in the Artesia Family Residential Center who had fled extreme violence, death threats, rape, and persecution in Central America and come to the United States seeking safety.

According to the complaint, the Obama administration violated long-established constitutional and statutory law by enacting policies that:

Follow this case:

When [my client] discussed her fear of gangs in El Salvador, the asylum officer seemed impatient and began to rush through the interview… Every woman I met was forced to care for her children and discuss her case simultaneously.… Mothers were forced to recount very traumatic and upsetting details of rape, violence and kidnapping in the presence of their young children.

Each and every applicant that I met with or represented during an official proceeding with an Immigration Judge or asylum officer had a child or children with them at the time, often in their laps. Many of the children were sick, and the mothers were often required to recount gruesome acts of violence, sometimes rape, while holding or trying to care for their children.

In every case I reviewed where the detainee requested to speak with an attorney, the asylum officer merely asked, "Do you want to continue or not?" In none of the interview summaries I reviewed did the asylum officer state that the person could postpone the interview in order to obtain legal representation….--The women reported to me that they were subject to various types of abuse.

[T]he credible fear interview I attended was conducted like an affirmative asylum interview, rather than a credible fear interview. Based upon over 13 years of experience with the asylum process, I believe my client established her credible fear within the first 45 minutes of a more than three­ hour interview.

In one case, the asylum officer made a negative credible fear finding where a woman claimed that the man who murdered the father of her [children] had threatened to murder her children. The woman did not reveal all the details of the threats because the boys were in the room with her at the time.

In one case, an asylum officer told a woman that the domestic violence she suffered several years ago was irrelevant to her claim, even though she was fleeing continued persecution on the part of her abuser….

[M]any women reported to me that they had very limited access to telephones. They had to wait in long lines to make calls, and their calls were limited to three minutes. They reported they were forced to clean in order to “earn” their phone calls. Some women told me that they were denied calls when the ICE officers were upset with them.

While I was meeting with my client, there was an ICE officer present in the room the entire time. I was not able to meet with my client in a confidential place.…. --I observed an attitude among the ICE officers that reflected a belief that none of the detainees had viable legal claims, and that all of them would be detained for a relatively brief period, and then removed.

Despite the fact that many children have chronic diarrhea and fevers, the mothers I met with consistently told me that the medical clinic at FLETC would only tell the mothers to give their children water to help them get well.

The children and babies also did not have adequate clothing. I saw multiple babies and toddlers without any type of blankets, shivering while their mothers held them close to their bodies for warmth. The mothers used tiny washcloths as makeshift blankets.

[An ICE Supervisor] told me it was his job to “move these people through here.” When I tried again to explain that my client had a positive credible fear finding, he said that did not matter because he has seen immigration judges reverse such findings. I asked whether he would consider bond for anyone, and he said no.

The attorney desks were located about 10-15 feet away from the ICE officers and so could easily be overheard by them. ICE officers approached us every hour, even during client meetings, to conduct head counts.

We were unable to speak directly to detainees who had not requested to speak with us and/or whose names we did not have already because ICE did not want us "soliciting" clients. We explained that we were volunteers and that we were not charging for our services, but we were still not allowed to speak to anyone not on our list.

I have been able to speak with [my client] only sporadically because the ICE officers at the Artesia facility do not permit her to use a phone at any set times, and when she is given access, permit her to remain on the phone only for short periods of time. During my first phone call with [my client] . . .

I am 62 years old. When I left Artesia and was driving to the airport to fly back to Alaska, I started crying in the car. I do not recall the last time I cried.--Visiting Artesia was a discouraging and depressing experience because my government is crushing the [spirits] of brave women and their children through a combination of denial of due process and stressful living conditions.

My client and I had no privacy while we worked on her declaration. ICE officials were constantly walking around us. We could hear children crying. We also heard an ICE officer reprimanding a mother because her child was too loud. There were so many distractions that I cannot be certain I heard my client’s whole story….

What was particularly troubling regarding the legal process was that, other than a handful of attorneys, there were no legal resources to help these women and children through what is an incredibly challenging process.

The court had not posted any information about the Artesia docket. The courtrooms were locked. Judge Hladylowycz was holding master calendar hearings and bond hearings. After watching those hearings, I asked Judge Hladylowycz if I could attend the review of negative credible fear hearings. Judy Hladylowycz told me that those proceedings were now closed.

This Practice Advisory discusses the impact of an interim rule repealing two former regulations which barred all “arriving aliens” from adjusting status if they are in removal proceedings. This Advisory provides a brief history leading to the rule, defines key terms, discusses the impact of the rule, and suggests steps that a parolee can take to benefit from the rule.

This Practice Advisory discusses Dent v. Holder, requiring the government to turn over copies of documents in an A-file where removability is contested, and offers strategies for making document requests pursuant to the INA and due process.

This Practice Advisory discusses the impact of an interim rule repealing two former regulations which barred all “arriving aliens” from adjusting status if they are in removal proceedings. This Advisory provides a brief history leading to the rule, defines key terms, discusses the impact of the rule, and suggests steps that a parolee can take to benefit from the rule.

This Practice Advisory discusses Dent v. Holder, requiring the government to turn over copies of documents in an A-file where removability is contested, and offers strategies for making document requests pursuant to the INA and due process.

American Immigration Council and AILA’s Connecticut chapter initially sought records related to CAP through a FOIA request to ICE in December 2011. When ICE refused to release records responsive to the request, Plaintiffs filed suit under FOIA for declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the disclosure and release of agency records improperly withheld by DHS and its component ICE

On August 22, 2014, the American Immigration Council, in collaboration with the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, the National Immigration Law Center, Van Der Hout Brigagliano & Nightingale LLP, and Jenner & Block, filed this lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia. The case was a systemic challenge to the policies denying a fair deportation process to mothers and children detained in the Artesia Family Residential Center who had fled extreme violence, death threats, rape, and persecution in Central America and come to the United States seeking safety.